Cheapest PC desktop option for photo editing?

I would like to run PS elements and photomatrix.

I also do lots of downloading, movie watching and extensive internet browsing with multiple tabs.

I am looking for a cheap option that will do what I want with power to spare. Cheaper the better!

How is this?

Dell Studio $847 (w/o discounts)
Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8300 (4MB L2, 2.5GHz, 1333FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-Bit
Microsoft® Works 9
3 yr In-home Service after remote diagnosis + Complete Care
No Monitor
8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4DIMMs
500GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
Integrated Intel® GMA X4500HD Graphics
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell Consumer Multimedia Keyboard and Laser Mouse

Anything that would work for me that is less expensive? I don't care what brand it is. I also plan to have this desktop for about 3 years and then just start over with another desktop.

Thanks.

That looks pretty good. Add a couple more hard drives (not from Dell) and it'll fly.

I would personally add a graphics card right off the bat (from newegg or something), but if you don't use CS4 or multiple monitors, then it should be fine.

If you're looking at three years then you're better off looking at AMD platform, as the Core socket from Intel is due to be phased out. Plus the Phenom II/Dragon platform gives better bang for buck nowadays compared to the Core series.

As to graphics I would hold off another month or two, mainly because the new DX 11 class graphics chips are due to be released from ATI/AMD (and maybe Nvidia if they can get their act together). This will help you future proof against that plus they'll be certified for Win 7. Current graphics will handle Windows 7 but they'll only be DX 10 (Nvidia) or DX 10.1 (ATI/AMD).

Thanks for the replies. I have a few more questions.

tim wrote in post #8490540
That looks pretty good. Add a couple more hard drives (not from Dell) and it'll fly.

Would externals be ok? I already have a few 500GB external drives and was planning to get a few external 1TB drives. Or internal would be better?

basroil wrote in post #8490682
I would personally add a graphics card right off the bat (from newegg or something), but if you don't use CS4 or multiple monitors, then it should be fine.

I am not sure I would use CS4, although in the future it's possible. I have never used dual monitors before but I like the idea.

Here are some cards that are offered with that system. Which would you recommend?

Integrated Intel® GMA X4500HD Graphics [Included in Price]
ATI Radeon HD 4350 512MB [add $60
nVidia GeForce GT 220, 1024MB [add $100
nVidia GeForce 9800GT [add $150
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB [add $180

Thanks

rjx wrote in post #8493902
Thanks for the replies. I have a few more questions.


Would externals be ok? I already have a few 500GB external drives and was planning to get a few external 1TB drives. Or internal would be better?


I am not sure I would use CS4, although in the future it's possible. I have never used dual monitors before but I like the idea.

Here are some cards that are offered with that system. Which would you recommend?

Integrated Intel® GMA X4500HD Graphics [Included in Price]
ATI Radeon HD 4350 512MB [add $60
nVidia GeForce GT 220, 1024MB [add $100
nVidia GeForce 9800GT [add $150
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB [add $180

Thanks

None. Go to newegg and get a card on the cheap. It's easy to install it yourself.

Faolan wrote in post #8493734
If you're looking at three years then you're better off looking at AMD platform, as the Core socket from Intel is due to be phased out.

I don't think it matters, in three years both companies will have different sockets, and you'll probably need a new motherboard anyway. So I wouldn't worry about the socket issue.

rjx wrote in post #8493902
Would externals be ok? I already have a few 500GB external drives and was planning to get a few external 1TB drives. Or internal would be better?

No, externals are very slow unless you're using eSata. Use internals for everything except offsite backup.

tim wrote in post #8495946
I don't think it matters, in three years both companies will have different sockets, and you'll probably need a new motherboard anyway. So I wouldn't worry about the socket issue.

Actually it does, it's faily cheap to upgrade a processor during the lifespan of the motherboard. The AM3 socket is likely to be around for another few years making it more interesting than a socket format that's just about to be phased out in favour of the new Intel processors. Since the AM3 was only introduced February this year it's quite possible that AMD will have processors for it in 2012.

Plus AMD has a better track record of making processors backwards compatible.

I guess it helps for a mid-life upgrade, they often give you 50% better performance, sometimes more. Upgrading to the latest generation in a few years should give a much greater performance increase. Still not sure it's a top priority for cheap systems.

Faolan wrote in post #8497543
Actually it does, it's faily cheap to upgrade a processor during the lifespan of the motherboard. The AM3 socket is likely to be around for another few years making it more interesting than a socket format that's just about to be phased out in favour of the new Intel processors. Since the AM3 was only introduced February this year it's quite possible that AMD will have processors for it in 2012.

Plus AMD has a better track record of making processors backwards compatible.

But think of it this way, according to all tests, even the best AMD processor (at stock speeds) is at least 10% slower in photoshop tests than the 2.66gh core 2 quad core. There are quad core processors up to 3.2gh from intel, so unless AMD shows a new processor that shows significant improvement over their phenom II, the chance that your current improvement in speed will outweigh a later one (i.e. that 10% added up over two years will outweigh the 10-20% in the last year) is pretty good.

And as I said, intel does have significantly faster quad core models, and in two years when everything is core i series, something like the 3.2gh quad core will be fairly cheap.

Basroil,

Where does it show that here?

http://www.anandtech.c​om …s/showdoc.aspx?​i=3551&p=9

Remember we're talking about a Q8300 here, a 2.5Ghz processor. Plus I'm looking at it from a platform perspective, which ATI/AMD gfx cards are best for media because of their AVIVO/HD-Decoders. Plus AMD mobo's are generally more feature rich than equivalent Intel Mobo's though this has improved a lot over the years. Also libraries are generally more optimised towards Intel instruction sets than AMDs, however Intel are generally better at number crunching (thing encoding/compression utilities). This is what I mean about the Dragon Platform.

Plus the Op stated Ps Elements, which I've never seen benchmarks for in regards to Intel Vs AMD processors. Considering that all these factors is why I suggest looking at an AMD option. Is 10% performance going to make a difference for someone who occasionally uses Element? Also what does that equate to, a few seconds? To most people they're not going to notice those few seconds...

Top of the crop is the Phenom II 965 which is likely to be the last new processor from AMD, they are not releasing anything new for the next year apart from new graphics cards from all accounts so all you will see is the continual enhancements to the Phenom II line in steppings and power reduction. The Phenom II is not designed to compete against the i7 series, and it's doubtful it'll even be able to complete wth the i5. This said it was aimed at the Core series which it does pretty well and forced Intel to drop prices.

To be fair to 90% of users they're likely never come close to maxing out all four cores on a daily basis and therefore it's generally overkill, I'm still using dual cores from about 3 years ago in much of my work.

I prefer tom's hardware tests, but whatever. You showed clearly that even the 2.5gh one should be tied with the top amd processor tested. You should remember the phenom ii 965 is the same price as a i7 920, so that chip is so irrelevant it's not even funny. Q9400 (2.66gh intel) is actually cheaper than even the 955, and only a bit more than the 945. If you want power, go intel. If OP has no clue what we are talking about, he should not even bother with cpu upgrade capability, since he would not know how to do it. If he does know what we are talking about, I personally say go with a q8300, good cooling, and bump that baby up to 2.8 for a nice, stable, and fast system.

Faolan wrote in post #8499606
Basroil,

Where does it show that here?

http://www.anandtech.c​om …s/showdoc.aspx?​i=3551&p=9

Remember we're talking about a Q8300 here, a 2.5Ghz processor. Plus I'm looking at it from a platform perspective, which ATI/AMD gfx cards are best for media because of their AVIVO/HD-Decoders. Plus AMD mobo's are generally more feature rich than equivalent Intel Mobo's though this has improved a lot over the years. Also libraries are generally more optimised towards Intel instruction sets than AMDs, however Intel are generally better at number crunching (thing encoding/compression utilities). This is what I mean about the Dragon Platform.

Plus the Op stated Ps Elements, which I've never seen benchmarks for in regards to Intel Vs AMD processors. Considering that all these factors is why I suggest looking at an AMD option. Is 10% performance going to make a difference for someone who occasionally uses Element? Also what does that equate to, a few seconds? To most people they're not going to notice those few seconds...

Top of the crop is the Phenom II 965 which is likely to be the last new processor from AMD, they are not releasing anything new for the next year apart from new graphics cards from all accounts so all you will see is the continual enhancements to the Phenom II line in steppings and power reduction. The Phenom II is not designed to compete against the i7 series, and it's doubtful it'll even be able to complete wth the i5. This said it was aimed at the Core series which it does pretty well and forced Intel to drop prices.

To be fair to 90% of users they're likely never come close to maxing out all four cores on a daily basis and therefore it's generally overkill, I'm still using dual cores from about 3 years ago in much of my work.

basroil wrote in post #8502618
I prefer tom's hardware tests, but whatever. You showed clearly that even the 2.5gh one should be tied with the top amd processor tested. You should remember the phenom ii 965 is the same price as a i7 920, so that chip is so irrelevant it's not even funny.

Intel 7 i7 920 £204.99
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 £141.99
Phenom II 955 £129.99
Phenom II 965 £178.99

That's not even looking hard in the UK and it includes VAT. Yes performance is tied Phenom II Vs C2Q, but in context that shows the AMD the better of the two platforms at that price point as the AM3 socket is far newer than the due to be phased out LGA775 allowing more chance of a upgraded processor in future. Then you have to factor in the cost of DDR2 or DDR3 and the motherboard cost.

I've never said that the AMD chip is a performance king, what I said was that the Dragon Platform is a far more compelling option than the LGA775 at this moment in time. Also the Phenom II is not aimed at the i7, though people keep comparing it as such. If you mention overclocking then the 955BE is a far better choice with a stable clock speed of 3.8Ghz on air plus the AMD ACC tech which makes it easy to overclock.

Another fact is that the power draw from the wall of the Phenom II is likely to be lower than the Core 2 Quad. The 955 at idle is about 105-110w I think that the C2Q 8300 will be about 150w idle going by the various charts (Q9650 pulls 145-150w idle).

OP is in the US, so brit prices don't really mean anything... from newegg, prices for i7 920 and phenom ii 965 are within $10.

And as I said before, OP has a low chance of actually ever upgrading the processor, it's far too complicated for most people (at least getting the right amount of thermal paste, installing chips, etc), most you would normally upgrade is memory and perhaps PCI-E cards. OP should get the fastest he can for the least he can, without caring about upgrading a processor. And that is currently the Q8200/8300.

As for processor power, don't know where you are pulling those numbers, I have a Q9450 rig that pulls 120W including a monitor and wireless router (power taken from UPS meter). Nobody said OP had to get a good graphics card after all.

Faolan wrote in post #8502918
Intel 7 i7 920 £204.99
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 £141.99
Phenom II 955 £129.99
Phenom II 965 £178.99

That's not even looking hard in the UK and it includes VAT. Yes performance is tied Phenom II Vs C2Q, but in context that shows the AMD the better of the two platforms at that price point as the AM3 socket is far newer than the due to be phased out LGA775 allowing more chance of a upgraded processor in future. Then you have to factor in the cost of DDR2 or DDR3 and the motherboard cost.

I've never said that the AMD chip is a performance king, what I said was that the Dragon Platform is a far more compelling option than the LGA775 at this moment in time. Also the Phenom II is not aimed at the i7, though people keep comparing it as such. If you mention overclocking then the 955BE is a far better choice with a stable clock speed of 3.8Ghz on air plus the AMD ACC tech which makes it easy to overclock.

Another fact is that the power draw from the wall of the Phenom II is likely to be lower than the Core 2 Quad. The 955 at idle is about 105-110w I think that the C2Q 8300 will be about 150w idle going by the various charts (Q9650 pulls 145-150w idle).